ML20140F673
| ML20140F673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1997 |
| From: | Pickett D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sipek J ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140F676 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-92-08, GL-92-8, TAC-M82809, NUDOCS 9706130189 | |
| Download: ML20140F673 (6) | |
Text
<
June 10, 1997 i
Mr. Joseph V. Sipek Director - Licensing Clinton Power Station P.O. Box 678 Mail Code V920 Clinton, IL 61727
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THERM 0-LAG RELATED AMPACITY DERATING ISSUES - CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT 1 (TAC NO.
M82809)
Dear Mr. Sipek:
By letter dated March 31, 1997 (U-602720), Illinois Power Company submitted a response to the NRC request for additional information related to Generic Letter (GL) 92-08, "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers," for the Clinton Power Station.
The NRC staff, in conjunction with its contractor, Sandia National Laboratories, has completed the review of your submittal and has identified a number of open issues and concerns requiring clarification.
Due to contractor scheduling restrictions, you are requested to respond to this request for additional information within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1364.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
j Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-461
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information i[
QW >
I cc w/ encl:
See next page b k[@[y g COPY DISTRIBUTION:
l Docket File PUBLIC PD3-3 R/F OGC ACRS JRoe 3 a,,..ga EAdensam (EGA1)
GMarcus JCalvo GGrant, RIII DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\CLINTON\\CLI85535.RAI To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy wth enclosures "N" = No copy l
OFFICE LA:PDIII-3 19, PM:PDIll-3l>
NAME CBoyle d(6 DPickett W '
DATE 06//D/97d Ofd ( O'97 E AL RECORD COPY DR 05 00 61
- Q P
,_.m h.
i t
June 10, 1997 Mr. Joseph V. Sipek Director - Licensing
. Clinton Power. Station P.O. Box 678 l-Mail Code V920 l
Clinton.-IL 61727
SUBJECT:
' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THERMU-LAG RELATED AMPACITY DERATING ISSUES - CLINTON POWER STATION.-UNIT 1 (TAC NO.
l~
M82809)~
Dear Mr. Sipek:
By letter dated March 31, 1997 (U-602720). Illinois Power Company submitted a l
response to the NRC request for additional information related to Generic Letter (GL) 92-08. "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers." for the Clinton Power Station.
The NRC staff, in conjunction with its contractor. Sandia National Laboratories, has-completed the review of your submittal and has identified a number of open issues and concerns requiring clarification.
Due to contractor scheduling restrictions, you are requested to respond to this request for additional information within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1364.
l Sincerely.
l Original signed by:-
l Douglas V. Pickett. Senior Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 L
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-461
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enc 1: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
l
- Docket File PUBLIC i
GMarcus EAdensam (EGA1)
JCalvo GGrant, RIII DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\CLINTON\\CLI85535.RAI To receive a copy'of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy weout enclosures "E" = Copy we enclosures "N" = No copy OFFICE LA:PDIII-3 lC PM:PDIII-3 it:-
NAME CBoyle & (;
DPickett W '
DATE 06//0/97d 06/ ((Y97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
--. ~.
s G Q*0%
p" 4
UNITED STATES g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
't WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 f
$g*****
o June 10. 1997 l
l l
Mr. Joseph V. Sipek l
Director - Licensing Clinton Power Station P.O. Box 678 Mail Code V920 Clinton. IL 61727
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THERMO-LAG RELATED AMPACITY DERATING ISSUES - CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT 1 (TAC NO.
M82809) l
Dear Mr. Sipek:
By letter dated March 31, 1997 -(U-602720). Illinois Power Company submitted a response to the NRC request for additional information related to Generic Letter (GL) 92-08 "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers." for the Clinton Power Station.
The NRC staff, in conjunction with its contractor. Sandia National Laboratories, has completed'the review of your submittal and has identified a number of open issues and concerns requiring clarification.
Due to contractor scheduling restrictions, you are requested to respond to this request for additional information within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1364.
Sincerely, g Om s/ ?vb%
Douglas V. Pickett. Senior Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-461
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ enc 1:.See next page l
l
Mr. Joseph V. Sipek Clinton Power Station Unit 1 Illinois Power Company CC:
l Mr. Wilfred Connell Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Vice President Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Clinton Power Station 1035 Outer Park Drive Post Office Box 678 Springfield, Illinois 62704 Clinton, Illinois 61727 Mr. Daniel P. Thompson Manager Nuclear Station Engineering Department Clinton Power Station Post Office Box 678 Clinton. Illinois 61727 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' i
RR#3, Box 229 A Clinton. Illinois 61727 Mr. R. T. Hill.
Licensing Services Manager General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue. M/C 481 San Jose, California 95125 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 Chairman of DeWitt County c/o County Clerk's Office DeWitt County Courthouse Clinton Illinois 61727 Mr. J. W. Blattner Project Manager Sargent & Lundy Engineers 55 East Monroe Street Chicago. Illinois 60603
i l
R10UEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE CLINTON POWER STATION. UNIT 1 FIRE BARRIER AMPACITY DERATING ISSUES DOCKET NO. 50-461 l
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) finds that the current Clinton Power Station (CPS) ampacity analysis has adequately demonstrated acceptable cable loading for the licensee's applications at CPS.
However, the licensee's submittal dated March 31, 1997, included a number of supplemental ampacity assessments based on a direct comparison of the cable design heat intensity for plant installations to those observed in one cladded ampacity test [ test results cited in SNL Report SAND 94-0146, "An Evaluation of the Fire Barrier System Thermo-Lag 330-1," dated September 1994].
Based on the information provided in response to the staff's request for additional information dated August 16, 1996, which related to the licensee's heat intensity based analyses SNL finds that several points of concern regarding the " Watts per foot" approach has not been adequately resolved.
Based on earlier reviews associated with other licensees (e.g., Palo Verde), SNL has concluded that the " Watts per foot" methodology is fundamentally incapable of providing an adequate assessment of the performance limits of individual cables. Therefore SNL finds that the licensee's apparent application of the subject methodology to be inappropriate and unnecessary.
The basis for the subject finding by SNL is discussed in Section 5 of the SNL Letter Report dated May 2, 1997 [ Attachment 1(a)].
The licensee is requested to abandon any further application of the " Watts per foot" methodology or, alternately, to address SNL's findings, as well as other staff concerns (cee section below) regarding the application of the subject methodology and to utilize the licensee's existing ampacity margin analysis sufficient onto itself as the basis for the conclusion that the applicable cables are operating at acceptable ampacity values.
l STAFF /SNL CONCERNS REGARDING " WATTS PER FOOT" METHODOLOGY 1.
Expe'rimental Validation of the Methodology The use by the licensee of the ampacity test results as presented in SAND 94-0146 is inappropriate given that the subject test was intended to reproduce a specific manufacturer's test conditions which, when compared i
to currently accepted test procedures, suffers from a number of l
experimental deficiencies.
[
ATTACHMENT 1
I. 2.
Cable Loading Effects In general, the " Watts per foot" methodology )rovides an inadequate treatment of the impact of cable loading on t1e allowable heat loads and assumes those effects are largely irrelevant to the overall heat rejection capacity of the cable tray or conduit system.
3.
Discussions in Section 5.2 of the SNL Letter Report dated May 2, 1997, of the following concerns:
- Inadequate treatment of depth of fill;
- Removal of conservatism from the Insulated Conductor Engineers Association ampacity tables:
- Inadequate justification for 32 percent ampacity derating factor as a bounding limit; j
- Analysis failed to use the appropriate ambient temperature; and
- Inadequate justification for applicability of the analysis method. (a):
SNL Letter Report dtd 5/2/97 i
l